SOILS FEETILIZERS. 725 



pp. 201, 202). — While ground liinostoue proved to be less injurious to lupines 

 than precipitated calcium carbonate, its effects were found to vary greatly (the 

 yield being increased by limestone in one case), so that no limiting point is 

 indicated. Calcium sulphate was also injurious to lupines, apparently causing 

 them to take iip less phosphorus. 



Assimilation of iron by lupines was retarded by both limestone and potassium 

 nitrate. It is considered probable that the injurious effects of calcium are due 

 partly to its influence on iron assimilation. 



Shall gypsum be used as a fertilizer? D. Meyer {Illus. Landw. Ztg., 35 

 (1915), No. 39, p. 267). — Experiments with clover, mustard, oats, and potatoes 

 on an acid sandy loam soil and a neutral sand soil poor in humus to determine 

 the indirect fertilizing value of gypsum are briefly reported. The results are 

 taken to indicate that gypsum has no indirect fertilizing value and that it can 

 not be considered of value as a lime fertilizer. 



The value of by-products rich in lime as compared with slaked lime and 

 ground limestone, H. von Feilitzen {Svenska Mosskiilturfor. Tklskr., 28 

 {19U), No. S-4, pp. 210^215, fig. 1; abs. in ZentU. Agr. Chem., U (1915), No. 

 4-5, pp. 160, 161). — Pot experiments with red clover on an undecomposed upland 

 moor soil, poor in lime and reacting acid to litmus, to determine the relative 

 values of so-called basic Martin slag containing 37.52 per cent lime, a coal ash 

 fi'om the iron industry containing 18 per cent lime, slaked lime, and ground 

 limestone, when added at the rate of 2,000 kg. per hectare (1,780 lbs. per acre), 

 are reported. 



As good results were obtained with the ground limestone and the coal ash as 

 with slaked lime. The results with the basic slag were much behind those of 

 the other three fertilizers for the first crop, but equaled them for the second 

 crop. 



Limestones of New York, with reference to their agricultural use, R. 0. 

 CoLLisoN and J. F. Baeker (New York State Sta. Tech. Bui. 47 (1915), pp. 3-38, 

 pis. 9). — This bulletin deals briefly with the stratigraphic position, general 

 locality, approximate thickness, adaptability to agricultural use, and prominent 

 characteristics of the 49 limestone formations found within the State of New 

 York, describes separately and more in detail the more important formations, 

 and reports the results of analyses of a varying number of each. A limestone 

 map is included showing the area of outcrop of each of the more important 

 formations or groups of formations, and two stratigraphical columns are 

 given showing diagrammatically cross sections of the hard-rock geology for the 

 eastern and western halves of the State. A final section briefly discusses types 

 and origin of limestones. 



Limestone and marl deposits of South Carolina, F. H. H. Calhoun (South 

 Carolina Sta. But. 183 (1915), pp. 31, figs. 7).— This bulletin deals with the 

 origin and practical agricultural uses of limestone, and reports an investigation 

 of the lime-bearing deposits of South Carolina made with special reference to 

 those suitable for a source of ground limestone and marl for agricultural pur- 

 poses. 



As a result of this investigation it is considered doubtful if, even under the 

 best management, the limestone of the Piedmont and mountain sections of the 

 State can be so marketed as to compete with North Carolina and Tennessee 

 products. 



It is stated that of the marl deposits of the State " few are found which 

 would encourage further investigation. The most promising deposits . . . are 

 those along the Santee River between Ferguson and Eutawville and near 

 Creston, and the deposits on the Pee Dee, near Godfreys Ferry, and those in 

 the lower part of Berkeley and Dorchester counties." 



